New at Reason

Jacob Sullum is feeling better and better about wishing for divided government in the 2006 elections. All that partisan bickering is working out rather well.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    All well and good. I still want to see the administration answer for the torture thing.

  • Doug||

    What torture thing?

  • ||

    We'll never get a satisfactory answer out of this government, the best we can hope for is to stop the hemmoraging and kill homeland security.

  • ||

    Perhaps hallucinating phantoms of lost liberty under the influence of post-surgical pain medication...

    Well, damn. I'm glad someone remembers.

    Doug, that's the funniest comment I've seen since someone asked, "What WMD scam?"

  • mw||

    Great article. Time to look at the ramifications of maintaining Divided Government in 2009. Presuming a libertarian swing vote, it can be the instrument of an effective voting strategy to maintain that state.

    If the independent minority of the electorate that is not "Independent in Name Only" actually will change their vote between parties based on what is good for the country (divided government) and consider a logical argument,we might get somewhere:

    1) Our "Checks and Balances" actually check and balance better when there is divided goverment. Not so much with single party control of all three branches.

    2)The Dems are almost a lock to hold Congress in 2008. Single party Dem control will be as bad as single party Rep control. R or D, they are still politicians and still face the same big money lobbyist temptations in Washington. Just different lobbyists are favored.

    3) Therefore, If we want to maintain the benefits of divided government in 2009, we will have to vote for the Republican presidential candidate regardless of who it is.

    4) If we want to have something to say about who that Republican candidate will be, then we will need to register Republican and vote in the Republican primaries.

    Punishing the Republican party in 2009 for the sins of this administration is in the category of "cut off your nose to spite your face". The spectre of single party democratic party control of the federal government should send shivers down the spine of any libertarian.

  • S.A. Miller||

    It is looking unlikely that the GOP will retake the House or Senate... does this mean, since divided government is so super great, that reason will be supporting the Republican nominee, regardless of candidate?

    Or does that whole divided government thing only work one way?

  • mw||

    BTW... the "liberty loop" thingie is not working. Apparently they have not been paying their hosting bills. You might want to do a little site maintenance and delete the link.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.